Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(build_rc): Enable compatibility with agent6 #32100

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 16, 2024

Conversation

chouetz
Copy link
Member

@chouetz chouetz commented Dec 12, 2024

What does this PR do?

  • Get the correct module tag when generating a build pipeline
  • Do not have 6 & 7 cross checks anymore (as they are 2 independent pipelines now)

Motivation

I wanted to validate I could trigger an agent6 pipeline from the main branch of datadog-agent using the inv release.build-rc -r 6.53.x command

Describe how you validated your changes

Launched the command from a brand new clone of datadog-agent. If finally generated this pipeline

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@chouetz chouetz requested review from a team as code owners December 12, 2024 14:50
@chouetz chouetz added changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Dec 12, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Dec 12, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 12, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 51068605 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 12, 2024

Package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 021ff675b936500389da4939165409df705db7b7

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB ⚠️ 1265.73MB 1265.73MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 113.24MB 113.24MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 78.41MB 78.41MB 10.00MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 526.58MB 526.58MB 70.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB ⚠️ 1274.97MB 1274.97MB 140.00MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB ⚠️ 1274.97MB 1274.97MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 113.31MB 113.31MB 10.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 113.31MB 113.31MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 78.49MB 78.49MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 78.49MB 78.49MB 10.00MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb -0.01MB 1000.84MB 1000.85MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 108.72MB 108.72MB 10.00MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 55.65MB 55.65MB 10.00MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm -0.01MB 1010.06MB 1010.07MB 140.00MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 108.79MB 108.79MB 10.00MB

Decision

⚠️ Warning

Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 6deda534-3dd2-41ec-8d78-9bf707fe59c0

Baseline: 021ff67
Comparison: 635794d
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +1.76 [+1.60, +1.93] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.81 [-2.13, +3.76] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.81 [+0.16, +1.46] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.26 [+0.16, +0.36] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.23 [-0.24, +0.70] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.06 [-0.57, +0.70] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.03 [-0.07, +0.13] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.76, +0.79] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.83, +0.83] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.04 [-0.90, +0.82] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput -0.05 [-0.88, +0.77] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.06 [-0.85, +0.72] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.08 [-0.85, +0.68] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.24 [-0.97, +0.48] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.28 [-0.32, -0.23] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_tree memory utilization -0.44 [-0.57, -0.32] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 8/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
# Tasks to trigger pipelines


def check_deploy_pipeline(repo: Project, git_ref: str, release_version_6, release_version_7, repo_branch):
def check_deploy_pipeline(repo_branch):
"""
Run checks to verify a deploy pipeline is valid:
- it targets a valid repo branch
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

❓ question
Should you update this description as git_ref is gone?

@github-actions github-actions bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Dec 12, 2024
@chouetz
Copy link
Member Author

chouetz commented Dec 13, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 13, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-13 13:04:16 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2024-12-13 17:04:19 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

This merge request was unqueued

@chouetz
Copy link
Member Author

chouetz commented Dec 16, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 16, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-16 14:48:57 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 34m.


2024-12-16 15:30:54 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 5b903ef into main Dec 16, 2024
211 of 212 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the nschweitzer/build_rc branch December 16, 2024 15:30
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.62.0 milestone Dec 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog medium review PR review might take time qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants